SOJAN JOSEPH Vs. E T KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH notice was served on the respondents by special messenger, there is no appearance for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam was set ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte on 25.9.2008. THE petitioner filed I.A.No.7820 of 2008 for setting aside the ex parte decree. That application was dismissed by the order dated 4th February,2009. THE petitioner filed an appeal against that order before the High Court on 18.3.2009, after having received the certified copy on 16.2.2009. THE appeal filed before the High Court was returned as defective on 16.6.2009 on the ground that an appeal before the District Court was maintainable as the valuation of the suit was below Rs.2 lakhs. THEreafter, on 26.6.2009, the petitioner filed CMA No.61 of 2009 before the District Court. THEre occurred a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. For condoning the delay, I.A.No.4257 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner. THE court below by the order dated 17th July, 2010, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the CMA also. THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the court below.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner has produced documents to show that he filed appeal before the High Court on 18.3.2009 and it was returned on 16.6.2009, I am inclined to hold that the said period is liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing CMA before the court below.